Yorkshire Housing Limited (201913281)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201913281

Yorkshire Housing Limited

29 March 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a humming or buzzing noise at the property.
2. the associated complaint handling.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is set out by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’), which sets out the type of complaints the Ombudsman will and may not investigate. In accordance with the Scheme, this Service normally investigates complaints that have completed a landlord’s complaints procedure. The Ombudsman can only investigate complaints made by a resident in their capacity as a representative where the resident has the authority of those they represent.
The Ombudsman’s investigations normally focus on events before and during the time when the complaint was in the landlord’s complaints procedure. While the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord is ongoing, this investigation assesses events from 24 July 2021 onwards. This is when the resident raised their most recent complaint, until the landlord’s complaint responses in September and October 2021. Events before and after this time period are referenced in this report for contextual purposes only.
Having carefully considered all the evidence provided by both parties, the following complaint issues are outside the scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation:
1. The complaint the resident made to the Ombudsman service on 17 March 2020 and 10 April 2020 that they were without electricity at the property.
2. The complaint made by the resident to their landlord on 5 April 2020 in their capacity as a representative of a residents’ association regarding the building methods used and quality of construction.
3. The complaint made by the resident to the service on 10 May 2020 about the size of their property and windows.
The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints (a and c) because there is no evidence that the resident brought these issues to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time (normally within 6 months of the matters arising). This Service has not seen any reason why issues could not have been brought to the landlord’s attention within this timeframe. Consequently, these two complaints are out of the scope of this investigation.
The Ombudsman is also unable to consider the second complaint (b) as the resident made the complaint on behalf of other residents without evidence, that they had the authority to act on behalf of the other residents.
The Ombudsman has made a previous determination in February 2019 regarding his landlord’s handling of a complaint concerning noise at the resident’s property and is unable, in accordance with the Scheme, to revisit any issues which were included in our previous investigation.
The resident has stated that the noise disturbance has impacted theirs and their family’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about their and their family’s health. However, it is outside our service’s role to assess the link between the reported noise and any health impact on the resident and their family. Although we have not considered the effect on health, we have considered any distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced because of any errors by the landlord.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a house.
The resident moved into his property in September 2016 and has complained of a disturbing electro-mechanical noise since moving in. He believes that this noise comes from the fuse box/circuit breaker or transformers and passes through electrical wiring. The resident complains that the noise is present 24 hours a day and is interfering with their family’s sleep and affecting their health.
In May 2018, the resident complained about the way his landlord had investigated a buzzing sound at his property caused by the electrics. The Ombudsman investigated this and concluded that there was no maladministration by the landlord in our decision issued in February 2019.
The resident requested the landlord provide them with:
1. structural plans for the interior of the property.
2. wiring/cabling diagrams or plans showing any plumbing/pipe works so the resident could investigate.
The landlord informed the resident in July 2019 that it did not hold electrical diagrams of its properties so could not supply these to the resident. On 28 September 2019, the resident’s wife contacted the landlord to say they experienced issues with the electrical supply and the sockets and there was a ‘whooshing noise’ from the sockets. The resident’s wife requested an internal wiring inspection.
In November 2019, the resident complained again to their landlord that the main issue with the property was ‘wafer thin’ plasterboards which provide no insulation from domestic noise in their opinion. The resident indicated this was causing them sleep and health problems and requested soundproofing of adjoining walls.
In February 2020 the landlord confirmed to this service that there were considering the resident’s complaint at stage two of their internal complaints process.
On 22 February 2020 the landlord responded at stage two saying that:
1. The walls between the resident and his neighbours are of solid construction so there are no void spaces between them.
2. The resident’s property complies with the regulatory requirements in force at the time of its construction.
3. It would not undertake any enhancements over and above the certified and approved standards as the property is standard general needs let.
4. That the resident is free to undertake any enhancement to improve the sound resistance between walls at their expense and they can apply via the landlord’s customer application for improvement process.
5. No defects reported during the 12-month defect period were outstanding and the resident has confirmed they were happy with all remedial actions taken.
6. It could not respond to the email report previously sent in 2019, in the resident’s capacity as of member of a residents’ group, as it did not raise any specific complaints or issues.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and complained of inaccuracies. In an email to the Ombudsman on 20 April 2020, the resident requested that their landlord:
1. replace the Circuit Breaker Unit, (CBU)/Fuse Box.
2. properly and correctly investigate (in their words) the noise issue/s by checking the wiring internal/external wiring and electrical components including any relevant fitted products, the heating and plumbing systems.
3. Install soundproofing in the property if the noise persists.
In April 2020, the landlord identified two other electrical faults and repaired these, but the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and asked that the service consider their concerns. On 24 September 2020, the Ombudsman asked the resident to provide the information they wish to raise on their own behalf, and which issues they were raising on behalf of other residents, as their representative. The service also asked for clarification on which issues had been through their landlord’s complaint process and which issues were outstanding. On 30 September 2020, the resident clarified their complaint is about the ‘wafer thin’ plasterboard and noise transference between their property and neighbouring properties.
The landlord agreed on 6 October 2020 to perform another inspection and on 15 December 2020 its contractors attended but did not inspect behind any walls/plasterboard. The landlord sent information on the ‘noise app’ to the resident in January 2021 to allow them to record noises.
In July 2021 the resident complained about their landlord’s handling of the humming or buzzing noise. The resident said that the landlord’s responses to date related more to the construction of the property rather than how it handled their request to investigate. The resident asked for relocation of the fuse box and for a wiring inspection behind the cavity wall and plasterboard.
The landlord offered to contact the resident on 5 August 2021 and accepted a new complaint on 20 August 2021. An electrical safety inspection certificate issued on 27 August 2021 confirmed the electrical installations at the property were satisfactory. On 1 September 2021, the landlord issued its response at stage one of the complaint process. In this, it stated that a fully qualified electrical team leader attended the resident’s property to carry out a full electrical check and reported that there is no electrical issue that is causing the noise.
On 4 October 2021 the landlord issued a stage two response stating:
1. It had received a noise recording and confirmed the fuse box inspected on 27 August 2021 is safe.
2. The noise from the fuse box is “within normal limits”.
3. An electrical technical coach who was able to verify the quality of the inspection inspected the fuse box.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response claiming the noise remains unresolved and the landlord has not investigated the plasterboard walls or considered what it may do to reduce or eradicate the noise.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a humming or buzzing noise.

Following the resident’s complaint about the noise from the electrics the landlord conducted a full electrical check in August 2021, and this confirmed that the noise was not caused by the electrics. The landlord explained to the resident that it had to trust the opinions of its expert contractors. In general, it is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of qualified contractors concerning what repairs should be carried out and there is no evidence to suggest that these opinions were incorrect concerning the electrics in the property or that other measures should have been taken to resolve the noise.
The resident’s tenancy agreement requires the landlord to keep any installation it provides for electricity in good repair and proper working order. The landlord complied with its obligations under the tenancy agreement by inspecting the electrics in August 2021 and establishing that the electrics were safe. The Ombudsman is not questioning the validity of the resident’s reports about electrical noise. However, the landlord is not required to perform additional specialist electromagnetic-induced acoustic noise tests under the terms of the tenancy agreement. It was only required to perform a general electrical inspection, which it did.
The resident provided the landlord with some noise recordings and commissioned an electromagnetic noise engineer to take readings. In October 2020 the landlord considered the fuse box noise readings provided by the resident but concluded the noise was within acceptable limits. As the fuse box was safe, the landlord concluded it was unable to take any further action. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange an inspection however there is no evidence of the basis for which it made its conclusion that the noise was within reasonable limits. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have explained its decision in more detail. However, the Ombudsman is of the opinion that the landlord’s assessment is reasonable as the resident has not provided any evidence which states that the noise is not within reasonable limits.
The resident was unhappy that the landlord had not looked within the walls to consider if there was any electrical wiring or installation which might be causing the noise. The resident is also dissatisfied that the landlord will not relocate their fuse box. However, the Ombudsman is of the opinion, that it was reasonable not to take this action. In February 2020 the landlord had communicated to the resident that the walls between their property and neighbouring properties were solid wall construction so there was no void space where insulation could be fitted. It accepted that the sound insulation could be improved but explained that the property conformed to building regulations in force at the time of construction. The landlord signposted the resident to its customer application for improvement process if they wanted enhanced sound insulation. Landlords are expected to maintain their properties and keep them in a good state of repair, but landlords are not required to carry out improvements unless it is necessary to comply with changes in law or following a formal request for adaptations for medical reasons.
In October 2021 the landlord concluded that the noise generated by the fuse box was reasonable. As the landlord is not legally required to move the fuse box it was reasonable for the landlord not to relocate it. The resident may wish to seek advice about the noise they have recorded, including on findings of the electromagnetic report they commissioned, from the environmental health department within their local council. Environmental health can carry out its own investigations into noise nuisance including fitting noise recording equipment, if it considers it appropriate to do so.
The resident should also consider if any members of their household have health issues that make them sensitive to noise and if a referral to occupational therapy would be appropriate. Referrals to occupational therapy can be made via the resident’s GP or by contacting their local authority. Occupational therapists have the expertise to make recommendations to the landlord to make adaptations to the property to help mitigate the effects of any noise on any pre-existing medical conditions. The landlord would not be obliged to make adaptations without involvement from occupational therapy. If either of these courses of action identifies any issues the resident should inform their landlord.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a two stage complaints process. Under the landlord’s complaint policy, it must log a formal complaint at stage one within five working days and issue a response to it within ten working days, inviting comments from the complainant. It must also respond to complaints at stage two of its internal process within 20 working days.
The resident complained on 24 July 2021 to their landlord, but the complaint was not logged until 20 August 2021 and a stage one response was not issued until 1 September 2021. This was a long delay which caused inconvenience and was unreasonable considering the terms of the landlord’s complaint policy.
Having logged the stage two complaint on 13 September 2021, the landlord failed to respond within 20 working days only providing its response on 4 October 2021. This involved another delay which would have added to the resident’s frustration. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it supplied the resident with structural plans for the interior of his property as requested. Although there was no legal obligation for it to do so, this could have helped address the resident’s concerns and led to more effective complaint handling.
It is fair in all the circumstances that compensation of £100 be paid to the resident in respect of the landlord’s failure to process the resident’s complaint in line with the timescales in the landlord’s policy. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The Remedies Guidance suggests awards in this range for instances of service failure where there is some impact on the complainant, which has not affected the overall outcome of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a humming or buzzing noise at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation for failings in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, within four weeks of this report being issued, the landlord should:
1. provide the resident with structural plans for the interior of the property, if these are available. The landlord should let the resident know if these are not available.
2. provide the resident with a copy of the latest electrical safety inspection report for the property.